Media Denied Access to Investigatory Powers Tribunal in Apple-Government Data Dispute
Private hearing raises concerns regarding transparency and implications for data privacy in the UK.
On March 14, 2025, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) convened for a hearing that reportedly centers on legal action taken by Apple against the UK Government concerning access to user data protected under Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP).
The IPT, a specialized tribunal that addresses complaints against UK security services and allegations of unlawful intrusion, held the session behind closed doors, restricting media presence and public transparency.
The ADP is an opt-in feature of Apple’s iCloud service, designed to ensure that users have exclusive access to their data, including various file types such as photographs and notes, through end-to-end encryption.
This encryption means that even Apple is unable to access the majority of these files.
Recent reports indicate that the UK Government had issued an order under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which requested access to information stored on Apple devices.
In response to this demand, Apple announced its decision to withdraw the ADP feature from the UK, effectively discontinuing its availability for both new and existing users who had opted in.
An Apple spokesperson reiterated the company's commitment to user privacy, stating, "We have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will."
Multiple media organizations, including the PA news agency, sought to ascertain the participants in the hearing and requested that the proceedings be held in public.
However, representatives of the media were denied entry, and the names of the parties involved were not disclosed.
Several civil liberties groups, including Liberty and Privacy International, protested against the closed nature of the tribunal hearing.
A joint letter from Big Brother Watch, Index on Censorship, and Open Rights Group argued that the case has profound implications for the privacy rights of millions of Apple users not only in the UK but globally.
They emphasized the significance of public knowledge regarding the UK Government’s rationale for compelling a private entity to compromise customer privacy and security.
Ahead of the hearing, Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, criticized the decision to conduct the proceedings in secret, describing it as an affront to discourse surrounding global privacy and security issues.
Killock asserted that the implications of the case extend beyond the UK or Apple, challenging the notion that the UK could justify risking the safety of Apple users through covert proceedings.
The IPT, a specialized tribunal that addresses complaints against UK security services and allegations of unlawful intrusion, held the session behind closed doors, restricting media presence and public transparency.
The ADP is an opt-in feature of Apple’s iCloud service, designed to ensure that users have exclusive access to their data, including various file types such as photographs and notes, through end-to-end encryption.
This encryption means that even Apple is unable to access the majority of these files.
Recent reports indicate that the UK Government had issued an order under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which requested access to information stored on Apple devices.
In response to this demand, Apple announced its decision to withdraw the ADP feature from the UK, effectively discontinuing its availability for both new and existing users who had opted in.
An Apple spokesperson reiterated the company's commitment to user privacy, stating, "We have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will."
Multiple media organizations, including the PA news agency, sought to ascertain the participants in the hearing and requested that the proceedings be held in public.
However, representatives of the media were denied entry, and the names of the parties involved were not disclosed.
Several civil liberties groups, including Liberty and Privacy International, protested against the closed nature of the tribunal hearing.
A joint letter from Big Brother Watch, Index on Censorship, and Open Rights Group argued that the case has profound implications for the privacy rights of millions of Apple users not only in the UK but globally.
They emphasized the significance of public knowledge regarding the UK Government’s rationale for compelling a private entity to compromise customer privacy and security.
Ahead of the hearing, Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, criticized the decision to conduct the proceedings in secret, describing it as an affront to discourse surrounding global privacy and security issues.
Killock asserted that the implications of the case extend beyond the UK or Apple, challenging the notion that the UK could justify risking the safety of Apple users through covert proceedings.
